Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Target Australia Sourcing LimitedTarget Australia Sourcing Limited
VS
H&M GroupH&M Group
Target Australia Sourcing Limited

Target Australia Sourcing Limited

N/A

Last Update: 25/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.target.com.au
768/1000Fair

Welcome to Target Australia Sourcing Limited! Our vision is simple: To provide our customers with quality fashion and basics for everyone at low prices. Target is an iconic Australian retailer with story began in 1926 when George Lindsay and Alex McKenzie opened a...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:62
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
H&M Group

H&M Group

Årstaängsvägen 13, Stockholm, Stockholm, SE, 117 75

Last Update: 05/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://hmgroup.com/
819/1000Good

Founded in 1947, H&M Group is a global design company with ~4,702 stores in 76 markets and 56 online markets. At H&M Group, we believe in making great design available to everyone. It’s essential in everything we do. Our family of brands and business ventures offer cust...

NAICS:43
NAICS Definition:Retail Trade
Employees:99,888
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Target Australia Sourcing Limited

Target Australia Sourcing Limited

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
H&M Group

H&M Group

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Target Australia Sourcing Limited in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for H&M Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Target Australia Sourcing Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Target Australia Sourcing Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - H&M Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

H&M Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Target Australia Sourcing Limited

Target Australia Sourcing Limited

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
H&M Group

H&M Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Target Australia Sourcing Limited company and H&M Group company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Target Australia Sourcing Limited company and H&M Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Target Australia Sourcing Limited company and H&M Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Target Australia Sourcing Limited company and H&M Group company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Target Australia Sourcing Limited company and H&M Group company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Target Australia Sourcing Limited company and H&M Group company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Target Australia Sourcing Limited company and H&M Group company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Target Australia Sourcing Limited company and H&M Group company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Target Australia Sourcing Limited company and H&M Group company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Target Australia Sourcing Limited company and H&M Group company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Target Australia Sourcing Limited company and H&M Group company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Target Australia Sourcing Limited and H&M Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Target Australia Sourcing Limited and H&M Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Target Australia Sourcing Limited or H&M Group ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Target Australia Sourcing Limited or H&M Group ?
Between Target Australia Sourcing Limited and H&M Group, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Target Australia Sourcing Limited and H&M Group, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2